Prosecutors: Time to put ‘fishing expedition’ argument to rest

MANILA, Philippines — For the prosecutors in the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, Monday’s court ruling granting their request to subpoena her tax and bank documents should already put one of the defense panel’s main arguments to rest. Private prosecutor Benjamin Tolosa Jr. and House prosecutor Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno said fishing expeditions for evidence only apply in cases where one is merely counting on the possibility that the material being sought would contain something incriminating or damaging to the accused. Tolosa and Diokno maintained that the prosecution had a specific set of documents in mind and knew the purpose for their production. Tolosa said in a media briefing, “We repeatedly heard the defense claiming that our request for these records was a mere fishing expedition. Although this issue should have ended because it was effectively set aside by the impeachment court after it granted our request, we just want to stress that this is not a fishing expedition.” “From the start, we have identified the specific accounts that we want to see. When we say that this is a fishing expedition, this means there is no basis and you are only asking the court, for example, to look at a person’s bank accounts and hope that you accidentally spot evidence that you can use against that person,” Tolosa added. Diokno, the House prosecutor who delivered oral arguments in support of the request, said a fishing expedition applies to a case where one seeks a subpoena “on the off chance that you find something.” Tolosa and Diokno said their request for a subpoena specifically sought bank records of Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, as earlier flagged by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). Tolosa stated, “What happened is far from a fishing expedition because we know, from the testimony and documents presented by the AMLC executive director, that the Vice President had financial transactions amounting to P6.7 billion, and we have specified the bank accounts with bank numbers, and even the branches where these involved bank accounts are located.” Diokno added, “Our basis (for the request) was what happened during the committee on justice hearings, especially the AMLC documents and the other witness presented regarding the allegations of unexplained wealth,” emphasizing that the prosecution has specific details of the Vice President’s financial dealings and is not merely speculating.